VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SANJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the appeals filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14th of August, 1995 by which the learned Single Judge declined to grant leave to defend to the three defendants, Vinod Kumar Gupta, the first defendant, M/s. Rockfield Developers, the second defendant and Ramesh Chand Suri, the third defendant (who are the appellants in these appeals) and consequently decree the suit, filed by the plaintiff-Sanjay Gupta, the respondent herein under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the Civil Procedure Code'), decreeing that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to recover Rs. 10,18,225.00 from the first defendant, Rs. 41,42,471.00 - from the second defendant and Rs. 16,08,161.00 from the third defendant From the date of the plaint, the learned Single Judge also awarded 12% per annum simple interest on the principal sum till the date of realisation instead of granting 36% per annum with quarterly rests till the date of realisation since the plaintiff had already charged interest @ 36% per annum with quarterly rests till the date of plaint and learned Single Judge thus felt that the defendants/appellants should not be further burdened with the same amount of interest. However, the learned Single Judge did not pass the decree jointly and severally. Learned Single Judge also held as follows :

(2.) The plaint avers as follows:

(3.) All the three defendants/appellants had sought leave to defend. We are taking up first the case set up by defendants 2 and 3, who are appellants in appeals [FAO (OS) Nos. 297/95 and 324/95] as their case is that there was no formal written agreement with the plaintiff/respondent entiling the plaintiff/respondent to seek a decree under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code and a suit against them was thus not maintainable under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code.